Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning And Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Developers and real‑estate interests urge flexibility, higher density and parking options in Great Seneca plan
Summary
Developers and property owners told the council they broadly support the Great Seneca Plan’s goals for life‑sciences growth but asked for zoning flexibility, allowance for ancillary uses and relief from strict structured‑parking requirements; several asked for narrower road widths and higher base FAR on opportunity sites.
Multiple developers and property owners testified in favor of the Great Seneca Master Plan’s goals but pressed the council for changes to ensure the plan is implementable and financially viable.
Eric Fisher, managing director at Trammell Crow Company, said his company supports the master plan but urged flexibility to meet rapidly evolving biotech tenant needs. “Only in this way will the master plan be adequately positioned to accommodate the needs of prospective employers in the LSC,” he said, arguing for permitting ancillary uses such as office, warehousing or interim surface parking and for swifter administrative processes for land‑use entitlements.
Françoise Carrier, counsel for Guardian Realty Management, thanked the planning board but asked the council to keep an unbuilt, dedicated right‑of‑way as a pedestrian and bicycle pathway rather than obligating an immediate two‑lane vehicular road. Carrier also warned that urban‑design language that effectively mandates structured or underground parking on small, visible sites could make redevelopment financially infeasible.
Patricia Harris, representing ProMark Partners, asked the county to reduce the proposed Road Z right‑of‑way from an 80‑foot section to about 60 feet to preserve developable width and limit impervious surface, and called two parallel bike trails redundant. She also requested raising the base floor‑area ratio from 1.5 to at least 2.0 for opportunity sites in the Life Sciences Center.
William DePippo of Alexandria Real Estate Equities said the plan’s urban street grid and recommended street types risk undermining the campus character of large biotech properties; he proposed a stronger pedestrian connection between campus clusters, reducing Row G from an 80‑foot downtown street to a 44‑foot commercial street, and correcting map labels that misidentify university facilities and recommended land uses.
Zach Trump, on behalf of the Greater Capital Area Association of Realtors, said his organization supports the draft plan and its emphasis on amenities, transit and housing, while noting that additional amenities and better transportation are needed to attract tenants to existing commercial buildings.
The testimony leaves a picture of broad support for the plan’s objectives paired with requests for adjustments to right‑of‑way widths, parking policy, zoning density and administrative processes to help secure financing and future tenants.
